Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving us his time in meetings, and I thank his officials for their work. We are grateful for the care with which he has considered our amendments and has responded to them, even when he was rejecting them.

We on these Benches support the principles behind the Bill and we are pleased that the Government are attempting to improve bus services. For some 30 years, since the Thatcher Government introduced deregulation, bus services outside London have been a story of decline. In contrast, buses have thrived in London within a much more regulated system. Although franchising may not be the whole answer—indeed, may not be the answer used in much of the country—we believe that partnerships have a much more active role to play for local authorities as well as for bus companies. They mark an important way forward.

Good bus services are an important part of a thriving economy. They are the most frequently used form of public transport and are essential to the mobility of older people, young people and, in particular, those who are less well-off. They are essential to the sustainability of rural communities and for a healthy environment. Air quality is a major issue of public concern, as the Government are painfully aware at this time, so frequent, reliable and reasonably priced bus services are key to discouraging car use. We hope the Bill will improve bus services and I hope our contributions on the issues of emissions, disabled access, youth fares and so on have helped to focus the Minister’s mind and those of his colleagues on ways the Bill needed to be improved and on ways in which a more ambitious approach might future-proof the Bill and make it more robust for the years ahead. I hope our work here in this House has done enough to make it strong enough to succeed in its aims.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as is customary at this stage in the passage of a Bill, I shall be brief. Obviously the amendment moved by my noble friend the Minister is a good one. As he has said on several occasions, the overall aim of the Bill is to make bus services even better, and I agree with everything just said by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the importance of bus services. There is much to support in the Bill, not least because it will pave the way for even greater partnership working between bus operators and local authorities. I was especially delighted to see the Government amend the Bill to ensure that passengers will have greater access to bus service information. This will make travelling on buses easier and perhaps a less daunting experience not only for those with disabilities, but for everyone.

However, not all the changes we have made were, I believe, so welcome. Giving any and all local authorities access to franchising powers is, in my view, a mistake. It will just serve to introduce uncertainty into the bus market and bus companies will have no incentive to invest. There will be no incentive to buy new vehicles, to keep passengers happy or to react to their needs, which runs counter to the overall aim of the Bill. This House prides itself on being a revising Chamber and it has certainly revised the Bill, so let us see what becomes of it when it reaches the other place. I hope that the next time we see it, the Bill will do what it says on the tin and enable local bus services to flourish and deliver for passengers.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, many of the amendments to the Bill have dealt with issues of detail and degree, but not so with this amendment, which is appropriately numbered 111. It involves a fundamental principle. I am bewildered why the Government are clinging to this nasty and mean-spirited clause which is totally at odds with the purpose of the Bill as a whole. Indeed, earlier today the Minister reaffirmed to us that this is a devolutionary Bill.

We on these Benches strongly support the principles behind the Bill. They will give local authorities more control over local bus services after three decades of decline since the deregulation of bus services in the 1980s. We have been fully supportive of the Government’s attempts to strengthen the role of local authorities in setting up both partnerships and franchise agreements. We believe that the structure being created through the Bill should raise the game of bus operators and at the same time should encourage local authorities to be much more proactive in recognising and supporting the role of bus services in their communities—local authorities will thus be able to raise their game as well to ensure that they are all as proactive as the best now are. We will have more Readings and fewer Oxfordshires, for example. So it is truly amazing and counterintuitive for the Minister to cling to this clause which takes away powers from local authorities in a Bill that is designed overall to give them more powers.

I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments so far on why the clause needs to be in the Bill. I have listened carefully to him and read Hansard to analyse the thinking behind the clause. As the noble Lord has just pointed out, municipal bus services actually do rather well. I say to the Minister: go with the evidence. Municipal bus services, of which there are approximately a dozen, consistently feature in among the 10 best-performing bus companies in Britain—I give him just two examples: Nottingham and Reading. There are also very good examples of municipal bus services which work in partnership with commercial operators, bestriding the divide between local authorities and commercial operators. Such municipal operators are the remnants of the system that existed prior to deregulation. I remind noble Lords that, despite still having the power to set up bus companies, local authorities have not rushed out in the past 30 years to set them up. Rarely has there been anything other than a gradual dwindling in the number of such companies. Why are the Government determined to intervene now?

We have to bear in mind that bus services might need the intervention of local authorities in the future. Local authorities might want to set up new bus companies. For example, a rural authority, faced with the collapse of its local bus company, might want to run its own limited service, integrating specialist transport for schools and social services with regular bus services.

What part of Conservative dogma does this clause serve? There is no doubt that we are legislating here for decades ahead—the previous Act was 30 years ago. The Government need to be flexible and far-sighted. On these Benches, we are certainly not in favour of large-scale renationalisation of bus services, but we are a devolutionary party which believes that local authorities should have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that local bus services are provided where they are needed. For that, they need all the powers in their armoury, so I ask the Minister to let them retain them by deleting Clause 21.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, despite the passion shown by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I am afraid that I am still not convinced by the renewed arguments for removing this clause. No one denies that existing locally owned bus companies are by and large a success story—I said as much in Committee. They have a great track record of securing awards and a very high satisfaction rate among their passengers. I can see nothing in this Bill that would change that and I wish those municipal bus companies every success as they continue to deliver for their customers.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked: “What is wrong?” The only reason why a local authority would wish to set up its own bus company now would be to put it in prime position to win a franchise contract, a contract that its parent company, the local authority, was awarding. That would make something of a mockery of that franchise competition. Why would another bus operator go to all the expense, in both time and monetary terms, of submitting a bid for the franchise knowing that it was up against another company that was owned by the awarding authority? It would be a done deal from the start, so other operators in that area might as well shut up shop straightaway. I therefore disagree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that Clause 21 is not consistent with the objectives of the Bill. It is necessary to make the Bill work properly. Of course, a local authority company would also have to invest resources in submitting a bid, but those resources would come from the local authority, so the body awarding the franchise would have paid for its own company to bid. That does not seem right.

I have a final point which I believe is very important: there is nothing new in this clause. All it does is extend the bar on establishing a bus company to types of local authority that did not exist when the Transport Act 1985 was passed; for example, unitary authorities. The UK bus market has coped very well for the past 30 years without district councils being able to set up their own bus companies, so why the outcry now? I think that I have answered my own question: a combined authority or unitary authority, having secured the necessary powers, would want to establish its own bus company now only to gain a foothold in the franchise process and wipe out the competition. That is not an acceptable way of proceeding. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will vigorously resist the amendment and support Clause 21.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing his amendment. I find it quite interesting and I look forward to what counsel the Minister gives us. I understand why the noble Lord has put the tests in new subsections 5A(a) and (b), but I am worried that subsection 5A(a),

“unless … it has received complaints about the operation of the franchise”,

could be used as part of a spoiling process by an aggrieved third party. On subsection 5A(b),

“unless … there has consequently been a significant adverse effect on competition”—

admittedly, it talks about an adverse effect—the problem I have is that it is bound to have an effect on competition because it eliminates competition. So I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, subject to what the Minister says, but if we are going to go down that route the tests might need better drafting. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister advises the House.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the noble Earl is raising a legitimate concern but, as much of the Bill is in a skeleton form with guidance to follow, I would have expected the spoiling process that he is warning about to be addressed in those guidance notes.

I remain seriously concerned about the tone and content of the CMA letter about the Bill to the Department for Transport, to which I drew noble Lords’ attention in Committee. It sets what I regard as an impossibly high bar: franchising should be allowed only if it is the only way to improve services. That is effectively impossible to prove. It is reasonable to ask local authorities to demonstrate that franchising is designed to improve services or that services need improvement. However, it is not possible for them to prove that there is nothing else they could possibly do, other than franchising, that would provide that improvement.

The Department for Transport has responded to the CMA, saying that it accepts the recommendations of the CMA letter in full. I am anxious to hear from the Minister in some detail about what impact accepting the recommendations will have on the Bill and its subsequent guidance. The CMA view seems to run counter to the thrust of the core aspects of the Bill, rendering it in practice likely to become yet another overcomplex piece of legislation on buses—sadly, along with the two attempts made by the previous Labour Governments—to reverse the impact of deregulation. We support the Government’s intentions with the Bill and we think they are working very strongly on the right lines, but we are concerned that inadvertently, as a result of the CMA’s response, their approach might be undermined.

Our concern, expressed in these amendments, is that the CMA could be seen to be overpowerful in this context. Given that it is clearly at odds with the thinking of the Department for Transport in some respects, it is important that the CMA is not allowed to become judge and jury in these cases. If it is consulted beforehand, it should not be allowed to come back after decisions are made unless there are genuine causes for concern as to how the franchise is working.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would add an additional subsection to the list of requirements for an enhanced partnership scheme. The ability of commercial bus operators to set their own fares is a key feature of the deregulated market. Of course, fare structures are set competitively in the same way as any commercial enterprise looks at its cost base and what its competitors are charging and then structures its charges accordingly. The competition authorities have important safeguards in place to ensure that bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market and set fares at levels that disadvantage passengers, so there are already checks and balances. As an aside, I have heard people say that bus operators are charging people off their services by setting fares so high that they deter passengers. What nonsense. Why would a bus operator want to charge so much that no one uses their services?

Clause 9 inserts new Section 138C into the Transport Act 2000, setting out the requirements for an advanced partnership scheme. There are many useful things in here and I very much support the concept of enhanced partnerships where quality partnerships or even advanced quality partnerships have not been possible, for whatever reason. It would be an important addition to this new section if fare structures can be specified in an enhanced partnership only where all the bus operators in the partnership agree. Bus operators have the expertise to make these sorts of decisions and have been doing so for decades. It really should be their call, within the usual constraints of what is reasonable, on what the market will tolerate and so on. I do not think that local authorities have this expertise. Therefore, fare structures within an enhanced partnership should be for the bus operators to determine collectively. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I will contribute to the debate on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which puzzles me. I cannot understand how a bus operator would be about to enter into an enhanced partnership if it did not agree with something as fundamental as the fare structure. The enhanced partnership would not be taking place. This is not something that local authorities are forcing bus companies to do; it is an agreement that is entered into by both sides. Therefore, if they could not agree on the fare structure, it would not be going ahead. I find the amendment puzzling.

Amendments 96 to 99 seek to find out more about how the Government envisage the system will work for enhanced partnerships. Once again we are trying to tackle the potential power of a bus operator to block an agreement or a partnership in an unreasonable manner. New Section 138F(11) refers to what the regulations may cover. But, to be honest—and I have read this a dozen times—it is pretty meaningless without seeing the draft of the regulations. So Amendments 97 and 99 require that the regulations be approved by Parliament—they cannot be slipped through by negative resolution. The important thing is that both Houses get the chance to debate the practicality and robustness of the regulations.

I remind noble Lords of what I said the last time we debated these issues. First, the Bill is a skeleton Bill. It stands or falls on the quality of the regulations. Basically, in this part of the Bill, we are being asked to approve a blank sheet of paper because we have no concept of what the regulations will look like. I remind the Minister that there are no guarantees of success for the Bill. The fact that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement with the principles of it does not mean that it will actually work in practice, because two previous attempts failed. The 2000 and 2008 Acts have not been practical. The practicality of the Bill lies in the regulations.

Secondly, I am not confident that even the Minister and his officials have a clear view yet of how some of this will work. I say this not out of any kind of inspired thought process but because the Explanatory Memorandum actually says at one point that the policy has not yet been finalised on an issue. You think to yourself, “If the Explanatory Memorandum confesses that the Government have not got round to the policy yet, clearly the regulations have not been prepared and the practicality and difficulties of them have not been assessed”.

I turn to Amendment 98. The concept is introduced elsewhere in the Bill that unreasonable objections should not be allowed. I am puzzled about why there is no mention of the concept at this point in the Bill. In this case, the provision allows objections on a purely numerical basis, rather than introducing again—consistently, I would argue—the concept that an objection might be unreasonable. This amendment attempts to introduce the concept of unreasonable objections to enhanced partnerships and address how they should be dealt with and tested. We suggest that, in the case of unreasonable objections, local authorities should have an appeal mechanism to a traffic commissioner. I hope the Minister will take on board the spirit of these amendments in an attempt to find out more details and practicalities of how this will actually work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Amendment 127A in my name would insert a new clause after Clause 21 that would cover essentially two things. First, it would phase out the bus service operators grant, with the money instead going to local transport authorities. Secondly, where there would otherwise be no bus service, yet there is a demand for such a service, it places an obligation on local transport authorities to work with specialist and community operators in partnership.

On the bus service operators grant, in a recent reply to me the Minister stated that this grant is worth £250 million a year to bus operators and local authorities, and that it has helped to extend the rural bus network by 13%. But that is only part of the picture. Basically, the bus service operators grant is going directly to operators. It is a poor incentive, particularly to greater energy efficiency. It represents the largest proportion of direct funding for the bus industry outside concessionary travel, which, of course, is not a subsidy. I believe that BSOG is currently paid to operators at a rate of 34.57p per litre of fuel used for running eligible bus services. Because it is directly linked to fuel consumption, a bus operator receives more subsidy if it increases its fuel consumption. It is therefore poorly linked to environmental objectives. BSOG artificially lowers the price of fuel and therefore reduces commercial incentives to bus operators to invest in more expensive low-carbon buses which deliver longer-term fuel and carbon savings.

At the moment, the grant subsidises bus journeys regardless of value or profitability of the service. Therefore, my amendment suggests that this grant should be phased out and that the money should go directly to local authorities. I suggest that it needs to be ring-fenced. These are, after all, tough times for local authorities and we need to ensure that the money is retained for the subsidy of bus services. Local authorities are well placed to decide local needs and priorities and to use the money to help them meet the objectives they set in their local transport plans; for example, the greening of their bus fleets. It is reasonable for the Government to decide what type of schemes can be covered by the grant but to leave it up to local authorities to choose local priorities. Crucially, the grant could be used to offer tenders to bus companies when otherwise local services would be withdrawn. I remind noble Lords that small operators, in particular, work to very small profit margins in some areas, particularly rural areas. Life as an operator in such areas is very tough and often on the margins. This grant could be used to assist them. We need to give local authorities the tools to encourage operators to keep running rural services.

Finally on this issue, as I understand it, the Government have already said that the bus service operators grant will be devolved to local authorities where franchising exists, so clearly there is no objection in principle to that. I urge the Minister to apply that approach everywhere.

The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that local authorities work with other organisations which have a responsibility to provide local transport services, such as education, health and social services. In practice, this often means one local authority department being asked to co-operate with another local authority department, or it could mean co-operation with a neighbouring authority or with the Post Office or the health service. It seems to me simple common sense to require local authorities to work with others to get what is in effect best value for money. This is already done by some local authorities so there is no reason why it should not be done by many more. This amendment encourages them to do this. It does not force them to do it; it simply encourages them. I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have always had concerns about the fuel efficiency argument that the noble Baroness so skilfully articulated. I do not oppose her vision but do not quite understand why the proposed new grant to local authorities would not get swallowed up in their general budget and not result in any additional services. If the noble Baroness would touch on that point, it would be helpful.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord will know that London bus operations have been regulated for some time, so the issue does not arise in London. It is a new situation.

Under any other circumstances this practice would be prohibited under the provisions of the Competition Act, so why is it okay in this case?

I remind the Committee that when the passenger transport executives sold their bus operations after deregulation in the mid-1980s, such data were a huge factor in the price they sold those businesses for in the private sector. That slightly answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, 30 years on, such data appear to have no value and local authorities can get back for nothing what they originally sold for rather a lot of money, with operators providing the means to determine their own execution.

My amendment does not put a monetary value on the data simply because they will be different in each case; I am suggesting that operators and the authority should come to an agreement on their worth. I am under no illusion—such agreement is not likely to be easy and may not actually be achievable at all. In that vein, I hope that my noble friend the Minister does not regard this as a wrecking amendment. That is certainly not my intention and I will not be seeking to test the views of noble Lords on this point at any stage. However, I hope that he will be able to give some words of comfort to bus operators. Intellectual property must surely have a value, as does good will.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74 tabled in my name. Before I address it specifically, I will say that we are supportive of Amendment 70. It deals with air quality data, which I have addressed on several occasions in discussions on previous amendments. However, we would certainly not be supportive of the noble Earl’s Amendment 72. For a start, it is about information that any reasonably good operator will have at their fingertips. We are not asking operators to do a great deal of work to find these data; they are all easily available. Secondly, the noble Earl states that this is a reasonable request but this information is publicly available as regards the railways, for example, and there is no reason why we should have this level of information about the railways but not about bus services.

[Earl Attlee]

Does the noble Baroness agree that if, without the benefit of the legislation, one operator shared this information with another operator, it would be in serious difficulties with the competition authorities?

[Baroness Randerson]

That is a separate issue. The issue here is enabling local authorities to make a reasonable judgment in order to produce a good franchising scheme. I accept that there are separate issues to be addressed in relation to competition.

I turn to Amendment 74, on the power to obtain information about local services and franchising, and the handling of that information. This is purely a probing amendment designed to investigate the unevenness within the Bill. I have referred to the uneven approach to the three types of schemes and simply wish to point out to the Minister that on page 58 of the Bill appear identical words to those in my amendment, which set out the circumstances in which information could be disclosed in the case of enhanced partnerships. However, in the case of franchising, on page 33 there are no such caveats or restrictions on the use of the information. I am interested to find out from the Minister the legal reason behind this—or is it just chance that there is a long list of things that one can and cannot do with that information in the case of enhanced partnerships, but which are not included in the list on franchising?

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, not-for-profit bus services, or community transport, cover a wide spectrum of services, including those operated by charities. I am the first to praise the extraordinary work the sector does for people who need a lot of support in their daily lives—drivers who walk users to their door to make sure they have not lost their keys and then carry their shopping into the hall are local heroes. The sector can also plug a few gaps in services for the general public where there are not enough passengers to make a route a commercial proposition and the hard-pushed local authority does not have sufficient resources to fund a standard bus service.

However, I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist the amendment. Community transport services are not subject to the same regulatory regime as local bus services. Their drivers are not subject to the same stringent training regime as those driving registered services, nor do they need to satisfy many of the other compliance requirements set down by the traffic commissioner.

Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985—it is mainly this type of service we are talking about with this amendment—are exempt from many safety and fair competition rules so long as they are not provided to the general public. So how on earth can they contribute to the success or otherwise of a franchise?

The whole issue of services operated under Section 19 and indeed Section 22, permits has been a bone of contention for many years with the EU. If community transport operators were required to enter the local bus market and operate under the same rules as operators of registered services, it would be a different matter, but they are not. There is no level playing field and, at the moment, community transport operators are able to operate more cheaply but without the regulatory safeguards in place for other operators. I therefore urge my noble friend to resist the amendment as gently as he can.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in contrast, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, because I believe strongly that there is a valuable role for community transport and not-for-profit operators. That role is particularly important in rural areas. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the very useful letter that I received today, which gives great detail about the Government’s approach to rural areas. I regret that the information is not in the formal impact assessment; nevertheless, it is now publicly available and useful to us all.

It is important not just that not-for-profit operators work in rural areas but that we look at the widest possible range of community-based schemes in urban areas as well. I give as an example Hackney Community Transport, which operates commercial services for Transport for London, and Ealing Community Transport, which runs buses in Dorset with Go-Ahead. Those are urban examples that have spread out from the area where they started, but the point I am making is that community-based and not-for-profit transport services are part of a flexible mix. If we are truly to improve bus services, we must have more variety: we must have an alternative to the big five bus companies which effectively run the vast majority of bus services outside London. Although they compete, in most cases they do not do so on the ground—they rarely compete against each other service to service. We need an alternative to that if we are to have a flourishing bus service throughout Britain.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend. I had not intended to speak, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, slightly provoked me into it when he commented that not-for-profit services “plug a few gaps”. I can tell him that in areas such as mine, in Suffolk, they are the service. Almost all rural areas in Suffolk now have no bus service.

I agree with the noble Earl that I would not want community transport schemes to be tied up in a whole plethora of red tape, but nor would I want emerging franchising models to ignore the opportunities provided, in the way that my noble friend Lady Randerson has described, or inadvertently to disadvantage smaller community services. It is easy to see how you could do that—by cherry picking parts of their routes and not linking with others, you can affect their viability. Whether it is an urban or a rural area, but particularly in the rural area I know, it is important to understand and get the ecology of the bus industry right: to understand that something you do to one part is going to impact on another.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Randerson

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not know that, but I expect the Minister will tell us.

The agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas is hard fought. Some tough battles are still extant where devolution deals just could not be worked through. Through their earlier legislation, the Government have established a process for a new kind of local authority, which has wide-ranging powers but first has to satisfy the Government that the right kind of structures and accountability are in place. The amendments would give the same wide-ranging powers to local authorities that have not taken those brave and often difficult political steps.

I am afraid therefore that I disagree with those noble Lords who say that this Bill treats local authorities without elected mayors or an agreed devolution deal differently from those who have. There is no unfairness here. It is a simple fact that authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have government approval to introduce bus franchising; other local authorities do not. What would be unfair, I believe, is allowing any local authority access to bus franchising powers without having gone through the democratic process of electing a mayor and acquiring government agreement to a devolution deal. I am not at all convinced by the arguments put forward for these amendments and the Minister has my full support should he ask the Committee to resist them.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide what other local authorities, along with mayoral authorities, may have franchising powers. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that it is,

“puzzled by the implication in the memorandum that mayoral combined authorities have expressed an interest in pursuing a franchising approach, given that there are currently no combined authorities with a mayor”.

Although an order has been made preparing Greater Manchester for this situation, its mayor will not be elected until 2017. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on exactly what the provision in the Explanatory Memorandum refers to. Does it refer to Manchester or other areas? Even more fundamentally, why should a mayor be any better at running bus services than a designated executive member within a transport authority? After all, the previous Mayor of London did not have a glorious record when running the buses. A great deal of resources were wasted on the “Boris bus”, and the fact that London buses run very well is down to the experience and expertise built up over many years by Transport for London. Compare the record to which I have just referred with that of Reading, which has an excellent municipal bus service run on a traditional civic structure, and has had the wisdom to invest well in its bus services over the years and maintain its municipal service operating at arm’s length from the council.

I give another example: the Mayor of Liverpool, in his wisdom, shut all the bus lanes. I do not think those are examples of mayors’ wonderful wisdom trumping other forms of local government organisation. I am puzzled about the position in which this Bill puts Cornwall, because, as the noble Lord said, Cornwall was promised franchising as part of its devolution deal but now, according to the Bill, has to get the Secretary of State’s permission to go ahead with franchising. Previously in Committee, My noble friend Lady Scott referred to Jersey as an excellent example of how franchising can work, even with small authorities. Jersey has 80 buses and a population of 100,000, but has increased bus passenger usage by 32% since it had franchising, saved more than £1 million a year in public subsidy, added five routes and increased the frequency of its buses. That is an example of franchising working in a very small locality. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will accept our arguments, agree to look at this issue and consider whether the need for the Secretary of State to intervene can be removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister can give us hope in this regard.